By: juanrga (nospam.delete@this.juanrga.com), August 16, 2014 11:53 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Paul A. Clayton (paaronclayton.delete@this.gmail.com) on August 16, 2014 10:31 am wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
> [snip]
> > 4. Marketing people talk about Xeon-class performance, but
> > then typically end up delivering Xeon E3 performance :)
>
> Why not Xeon Phi performance on Xeon E7-appropriate workloads? ☺
>
> More seriously "Xeon-class" is a very flexible description even ignoring the breadth of the Xeon
> brand. What constitutes being in the same class with respect to performance (within 5% best-to-best,
> within 10% median-to-median, within 20% best-to-worst)? What workloads are being considered?
This has been answered before. By Xeon-class performance companies are meaning about 80--90% of the performance. I.e. within 20% at worst.
Concrete models of Xeon E5 used in the comparison against ARM, benchmarks used and the scores achieved were also mentioned before, and for both X-Gene and ThunderX.
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on August 15, 2014 9:41 am wrote:
> [snip]
> > 4. Marketing people talk about Xeon-class performance, but
> > then typically end up delivering Xeon E3 performance :)
>
> Why not Xeon Phi performance on Xeon E7-appropriate workloads? ☺
>
> More seriously "Xeon-class" is a very flexible description even ignoring the breadth of the Xeon
> brand. What constitutes being in the same class with respect to performance (within 5% best-to-best,
> within 10% median-to-median, within 20% best-to-worst)? What workloads are being considered?
This has been answered before. By Xeon-class performance companies are meaning about 80--90% of the performance. I.e. within 20% at worst.
Concrete models of Xeon E5 used in the comparison against ARM, benchmarks used and the scores achieved were also mentioned before, and for both X-Gene and ThunderX.